This blog is about spiritual awakening, maps and stages, the blinding effects of our strong momentum/conditioning (karmic propensities), view, realization, experience, etc. If you're new here, I recommend going through the 'Must Reads' articles (see sidebar). For discussions you are welcome to join the Awakening to Reality Facebook group

The Five (Brethren)
Pañca Sutta (SN 22:59)

This discourse is also known as the Anatta-lakkhaṇa
Sutta, the Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic. According to Mv I,
this was the first of the Buddha’s discourses during which his
listeners became arahants.

* * *

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was
staying near Vārāṇasī in the Deer Park at Isipatana. There he addressed
the group of five monks:
“Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this
form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say)
with regard to form, ‘Let my form be thus. Let my form not be thus.’ But
precisely because form is not self, this form lends itself to dis-ease.
And it is not possible (to say) with regard to form, ‘Let my form be
thus. Let my form not be thus.’
“Feeling is not self.…
“Perception is not self.…
“Fabrications are not self.…
“Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the
self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be
possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be
thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.’ But precisely because
consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And
it is not possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, ‘Let my
consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.’
“What do you think, monks? Is form constant or inconstant?”
“Inconstant, lord.”
“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”
“Stressful, lord.”
“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant,
stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is
what I am’?”
“No, lord.”
“… Is feeling constant or inconstant?” — “Inconstant, lord.” …
“… Is perception constant or inconstant?” — “Inconstant, lord.” …
“… Are fabrications constant or inconstant?” — “Inconstant, lord.” …
“What do you think, monks? Is consciousness constant or inconstant?”
“Inconstant, lord.”
“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”
“Stressful, lord.”
“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant,
stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is
what I am’?”
“No, lord.”
“Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future,
or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime;
far or near: Every1 form is to be seen with right discernment as it has come to be: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’
“Any feeling whatsoever.…
“Any perception whatsoever.…
“Any fabrications whatsoever.…
“Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or
present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far
or near: Every1
consciousness is to be seen with right discernment as it has come to
be: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’
“Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones
grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted
with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge,
‘Released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled,
the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’”
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group
of five monks delighted in the Blessed One’s words. And while this
explanation was being given, the minds of the group of five monks,
through lack of clinging/sustenance, were released from effluents.

Note

1. The word “every” here and in all parallel passages is sabba, which is the same as the word for “all.” On the range of meaning covered by the word “all,” see SN 35:23. DN 11, DN 15, MN 49, and AN 10:81
indicate that there is a type of consciousness that lies outside the
range of “all,” and so would not fall under the aggregate of
consciousness. This apparently corresponds to the dimension mentioned in
SN 35:117 and Ud 8:1.